RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1262, 30 January 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. [Before R. Hill Fisher, Esq., J.P.,and His Worship the Mayor, E. K. Brown, Esq., J.P.] H CIVIL CASES. Thelwall and Co. v. H. Haase. Claim £7 14s 6d. Mr Kenny for plaintiffs. Judgment by default for £7 14s 6d and costa. G. Johnston v. Edward Walker. Claim £ 4s, fur goods supplied. Mr Kenny appeared for plaintiff, and called Mr G. Direy, who proved that £9 had been paid into Court, without the eosts. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 4s, costs of Court 12s, and solicitors’ fee £1 Is. J. McKenzie v, W. Harvey. Claim £l3 17e 7d, for amount agreed upon with interest. Judgment for plaintiff' for full amount, and costs, £1 4s; counsel’s fee, £1 Is, J. Parker v. M. G. Nasmith. Claim £1 2a 6d, for “ Herald ’’ newspaper delivered. The plaintiff stated that one of the runners had left the “ Herald ’’ newspaper at the de-

fendant’s business premises in the Gladstone Road, and the claim was for nine months’ subscription at 7s 6d per quarter, from April 23rd 1882, to Jan. 23rd, 1883, amounting to &1 2s 6d. It was perfectly true that the papers had been left at defendant's business premises, and he (plaintiff - ) had never been told to discontinue leaving it. The plaintiff then called the lad who delivered the “ Herald ” regularly at the defendant’s place of business. The boy stated that he had left the paper regularly, and had never been told to discontinue doing so. This was all the evidence for the plaintiff. The defendant, M. G. Nasmith, was then sworn, and deposed that he had never authorised the paper (“ Herald ”) to be left at his business premises. When he (defendant) took the “ Herald” after he had ordered its discontinuance he or his brother had always paid cash for it either when it was delivered or at the end of the week. He could not say whether the paper had been left at his premises or not. He knew that his brother had on several occasions paid for the paper. There was a subscription of twelve months alleged to be due, but he distinctly denied it. Kenneth Nasmith stated that he had paid the boy who ran the “ Herald ” on several occasions, but as his brother wished him to take the Standard and discontinue the “ Herald ” he had not paid anything since. In answer to the Bench the plaintiff said “ The defendant never authorised either myself or the boy to leave the “ Herald.” After a short consultation the bench gave judgment for the defendant with costs.